Forum:Random Template

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Random Template

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5747 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Note: This is NOT an attempt to delete the template. I think it is keepable, but I have some issues with it.

First off, what is the point of this template? I can see at least 4 uses:

1. As a Warning template. Here, it would be appropriate, although, we have several templates that do the same thing. We may or may not want to thin those out at some point.
2. As a "fix this" template. This might not be a bad idea; however, I generally don't like unofficial "fix this" templates. For one, it doesn't categorize the articles into a official "fix this" category. And, I don't think its wise have more "fix this" categories, it just makes stuff that needs fixing harder to find.
3. As a "canned joke" template. The template isn't very funny to begin with, and its even less funny the 50th time one sees it.
4. As a "mock this up even worse than it is" template. This would be a perverse instruction, or at least potentially perverse instruction, incoherent articles are rarely never ever funny.

In addition, this template also has some formatting issues. Chiefly, its too wide, and the image sometimes goes out of the box. I did do some reformatting, but was reverted as my reformatting made the template stick out even more.

Basically, what should this template be used for, and how should it function? Personally, I think the random (literally) humor isn't funny at all, and this should function as a fix this and/or warning template. I could live with some of the randomness, but I think the template could be shortened. Its too much like a canned joke right now. --Mnb'z 05:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Random can work, but it's hard to do well. Also, I hate templates, but this one gives the authors/readers a heads up that it's the bad kind of random. Lastly, I have no idea what random means. This is because of my nipples and their love of Saturday morning cartoons from the 70's and early 80's. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I'm sure of is that we don't have a problem finding articles to fix. Finding people to fix em, that's a different story. To me, a template like this is kinda the same as something like {{Little Article}} or {{stub}}. It's a softer quality control template to be used when the article is passable as an Uncyc article, but that we want the author (and people reading it) to know that this style of humour is not really what we are looking for. If we put all of these type article into {{rewrite}} it would be swamped, so it needs to be used sparingly so that the articles which are in the cat get the attention they need. There is always "what links here". I'm not sure if this is the best template to do what I'm talking about, but I think it's OK to have this type of template generally. MrN  Fork you! 14:11, Feb 8

I really don't have a problem with this template. It is a valid warning template, and probably a valid soft maintenance template. (Although I do tend to dislike unofficial "fix this" categories.) My main problem is the issue of whether or not a noob would see this a "fix this"/"warning" template, and not a "canned joke"/"mock this up even more"/"babble incoherently then slap this tag on it to save said babblings" template. Basically, what should we do to make this function better? I could suggest some code fixing and some pruning to take down size so its less cluttering. --Mnb'z 22:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, you mean you want us to actually do something? Steady on there cowboy. Anyway, we a have template expert now, who takes care of these things! :P MrN  Fork you! 22:17, Feb 8

More along the line of getting some opinions of what should be done to it. --Mnb'z 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also

Isn't "Random", as both a template and a category, basically redundant to "Bat Fuck Insane"? Seems that consolidating them could be to our collective benefit. pillow talk 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? What's the problem with having more than one template to do the same thing? Variety is the spice of life. Actually sorry, scratch that, the worm is the spice. MrN  Fork you! 20:56, Feb 8

Also, Grease is the word (Singalong!). Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Forced collectivization?! That's commie talk! Get him! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Potential Reformatting Ideas

Upon further reflection, I think this should function as a warning template only. Or atleast, not function as both warning and "fix this" templates. The following is my rather italic and minimalist suggestion of what the template should look like. Although, it might go too far in trimming it:

--Mnb'z 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you like my changes... MrN  Fork you! 01:21, Feb 9

The question is, should this be a "fix this" or a warning template. I was leaning toward this being a warning template, but, On the second thought, maybe "Bat Fuck Insane" and "Ape Shit Crazy" could be the "random warning templates" and this be the "random, so fix this" template. --Mnb'z 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's both. Just like loads of the others which we have which are like it. MrN  Fork you! 01:31, Feb 9

I think the real problem is whether we need such a template. Many of the unreadable tend to stay in the main space for 12+ months without anyone actually editing them. I hate sounding like a "delete-everything" nitwit, but I also hate clicking the Random page link and end up stumbling upon one of these unloved articles that no one knows how to fix. If it stinks and and not fixable, it should go straight into the bin. The last thing a pointless article needs is an equally pointless template. -- The Colonel (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the articles aren't so much unfixable, its more of the fact that nobody gets around to fixing them. --Mnb'z 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mnbvcxz, that template looks awesome. It's the only template I've ever seen that made me lol? Mostly that's because of the picture, but still. IronLung 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't humor but conveying information as concisely as possible. --Mnb'z 05:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

THE POINT MUST ALWAYS BE HUMO(U)R!!! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

About Template:Little Article and my current dislike for it

I think giving loads of alternatives to this when I put it on VFD was quite confusing and detracted from what I like the least about the template: that it is an improvement template without a category, which is completely pointless. I don't care that it doubles up, because this place really is just organised chaos. But in its current form it does nothing and helps no one. IronLung 04:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see where MrN9000 is coming from. We can't stick 95% of the articles in one big "fix this" category. That being said, my view is that if an article needs a "fix this" template, it should go in some sort of "fix this" category. Like a "could use some work but good enough as is" category. Also, we probably need to categorize the "fix this" categories better, so he don't have "forgotten" categories. --Mnb'z 04:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All we need is two categories. Things that Mooses wrote and Things that Mooses did not write. The first covers everything that's filled with win, and the second covers everything that needs to be rewritten by Mooses to increase the quantity of win. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Little Article}} encourages people who find the page to edit it. If this template is pointless, then so is {{stub}}, which it's not. This is for articles which are bigger than stubs, but need a bit more work. How many articles like that do we have? MrN  Fork you! 10:04, Feb 9

Why not have a "Little Articles that need more work" category? --Mnb'z 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not have a "Users who either need to go write fecking articles or go outside and get a job" category...--Sycamore (Talk) 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sycamore for the win! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I clearly don't belong in that category, since all my writing sucks, and I'm more as a categorizer, deleter, and reviewer. --Mnb'z 18:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can categorically say that sir Mnbvcxz appears to not want to stop until he has categorised everything! I woke up this morning and all my pants had been sorted and listed via size, shape, texture and snugness. A "Little Articles that need more work" category would be kinda pointless unless we advertised such a category in a prominent place so that people could find it. We probably have enough of such things already. Also remember that there is always what links here. That said, I fear that Mnbvcxz may soon embark on attempting to categorise my entire trouser collection and so in a desperate attempt to keep some disorder to the MrN household I have added {{Little Article}} to category:Stuck articles needing a push. That is linked from Uncyclopedia:What You Can Do, and did not have that many articles in it. May God have mercy on my pants... Oh, your writing does not suck Mnbvcxz. You just had a hard time one VFH once. That sir, has happened to all of us. MrN  Fork you! 19:10, Feb 9

You imply that the tag means there's something wrong with the tagged article being short. That tag means that it's fine as it is, but that if anyone who happens to read it can add anything, feel free. And that's what most maintenance templates did before categorizers, deleters, and reviewers decided that wasn't good enough for them. And then uncyclopedia became the worst. Coincidence? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:28, 09 Feb 2009

This was how it was created. I changed it to say this. MrN  Fork you! 23:07, Feb 9

Ohh, it's like {{expand}}, but the other way round! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:18, 10 Feb 2009

I like {{expand}}. If we did not have it, people would use ICU-short more. If you want to talk about {{ugly}} and {{fix}}, then I think we should change it so that they can only be used for new articles. MrN  Fork you! 01:42, Feb 10

I generally think its better to have too many "fix this" templates than too few. If you don't have one for a given function, its only a matter of time before some noob creates a rouge maintenance template to fill the need. --Mnb'z 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)